Updated 2026-11-03: the protocol has no financial layer, and the dispute cascade is specified, not built. Updated 2026-10-30: the full report is no longer published. Updated 2026-10-19: the operator’s name.
In July 2026, before any token, sale or outside request existed, we put MintID through a full economic-viability audit. We checked the project against our own frozen specification corpus. The audit tested the tokenomics, the unit economics, the solvency of every participant and the survivability of the project.
Conectia PRO performed the audit. It is the trade name of Conectia OÜ, the company that conceived MintID and is building it. Conectia is the development company and the funder of the pre-genesis work. It also operates the first issuer, the first verifier, the reference implementations and the anchor product. These roles make Conectia a related party in every position it holds. This post discloses each role as such, and it does not present the audit as an arm’s-length third party’s. Conectia’s positions carry no protocol privilege. Its issuer and verifier run on the same bond, admission and status-root terms as anyone else’s, which anyone can verify on-chain. This related-party audit ran with audit discipline. We publish its complete verdict and findings register here. The full report itself is no longer published. The token-allocation model it analyses is now under review. The answers below remain published as the dated record of the August 2026 specification re-freeze. This post explains what the audit examined, what it found, and how we updated the specifications within days.
The audit asked whether every participant can stay solvent
The audit took the perspective of a prospective investor and a prospective validator. It asked the first questions of investor diligence. It tested whether every participant in this system can stay solvent and whether protocol revenue scales with adoption. It also asked whether the launch gate can be measured, and whether the project can survive to mainnet and past it.
An audit run this close to the project earns only as much trust as its method shows. The audit worked only from the frozen specification corpus and public sources. It cited every material claim to the line, and it kept documented fact, auditor arithmetic and auditor judgment explicitly separate. The auditor checked every market figure against independent external sources. That check is where the corroboration gets its weight. The conclusions bound us. We had to answer every finding in writing, in the specifications, before the genesis parameters could freeze.
The audit returned a qualified opinion with five critical, seven high and ten medium findings
We always quote the opinion in full. We do not quote it selectively. The audit returned a qualified opinion with five critical findings, seven high, ten medium, and twelve conditions precedent to a favourable opinion. None of the five critical findings was judged fatal. All of them were precise, and we had to remediate every one before the genesis parameters freeze.
The report also corroborated the market thesis against independent sources. The headline demand figures matched. The agent-insurance figure was not corroborated, and the Kleros count only partially. The specifications rely on these market figures: more than a billion AI agents by 2029 (IDC), roughly 50 machine identities per human in enterprise environments (Omdia, 2024), and the transaction economics of x402, the pay-per-request protocol built on HTTP’s 402 status code. These headline figures are the ones cited in the report and listed on where the numbers come from. The report found no incumbent serving our niche of privacy-preserving, funded, regulated-grade agent identity. It also confirmed that transparent-identity competitors are consolidating quickly.
Each critical finding got a written answer in the corpus
We answered with a single coordinated re-freeze of the entire specification corpus. Every change carries a marker back to its recorded, ratified decision.
| The audit found | The re-freeze answers |
|---|---|
| The genesis allocation policy contradicted itself on a decision that is irreversible by construction. A declared band conflicted with an incompatible working figure. | A recorded decision in August 2026 resolved this contradiction. We ratified the allocation as bands: 15% for development and team, 20–25% for the public tranche, and at least 60% for the validator emission pool. We commissioned the final points to the independent simulation. The allocation model is now under review. |
| The launch had a circular dependency. Without a listing, there is no market price. Without a market price, the minimum-economic-security gate cannot be measured, so professional validators cannot be recruited. | We re-denominated the gate in four measurable, price-independent units: bonded share of supply, independent-operator count, a Nakamoto-coefficient floor, and a published attack-cost methodology. Validators become contractable counterparties through fiat-denominated service agreements. |
| The funded-accountability layer hung on requirements that had no normative text in any live document. They existed only in a superseded archive draft that contradicted the current design. | The requirements now have live normative text in the re-frozen corpus. We wrote, versioned and froze the text that previously existed only as citations. |
| No economic parameter existed beyond the hard cap, and the independent simulation that must produce them all had not been commissioned. | We ratified the bands, which are the agreed ranges for each parameter. We also scoped the simulation as a funded statement of work. Its deliverables cover every open point: every fee, band point, emission parameter and the arbiter-market sizing. Those values will come from the independent simulation. We do not set them ourselves. |
| Protocol revenue was structurally decoupled from adoption, and the validator security budget had no documented successor once emission runs out. | Per-agent mint/lease and consented disclosure are the two flows that scale with the agent population. Both flows now carry normative, non-zero protocol cuts, and their allocation is under review. The post-emission security budget also has a written answer. It uses a modelled fee market, and its successor options never include printing more tokens. |
A recorded decision now resolves the genesis-allocation contradiction. The requirements that existed only as citations now have live normative text. And the launch gate is now denominated in four measurable units instead of an unmeasurable one.
The bands became policy, and the cap stayed where it was
These updates turned the tokenomics from an initial outline into formal policy. The mechanism is committed and the parameter bands are ratified. We commissioned the exact starting numbers from an independent simulation. We do not set them internally. The tokenomics page sets out the full structure. It covers the ratified bands and the four-year vesting schedule with a one-year cliff and a twelve-month lock-up. It also states the rule that insider genesis accounts may not delegate, may not vote, and do not count toward the launch-security gate.
The audit also asked how we would pay for a public launch. The answer in the corpus is conditional. If we choose the public route at the Gate-1 go/no-go, we would finance the launch through the complete EU MiCA Title II path with a published budget. That route requires a floor. If the offer missed the floor, we would re-stage the scope and never launch under-funded. Any such launch would happen in stages, with identity first. Each stage would have its own audits as scheduled milestones whose findings are published. The dispute cascade is specified, not built, and the protocol has no financial layer. Today nothing is offered. MintID runs without a token on the single-node production chain, which Conectia has operated in production since 20 September 2026. The roadmap shows the stages and the three engagements on the critical path.
The parts we consider load-bearing did not move. The hard cap of 108,000,000 stays immutable. Verification carries no fee, by construction. Presentations always stay off-chain. Consensus revenue stays firewalled from service revenue. And no token or crypto-asset is for sale, as the site states visibly.
The record of the audit
The verdict and the findings register above form the record of the July 2026 audit. You can check the frozen specifications against them. The full report itself is no longer published.